Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:47, 20 February 2015

This user is an administrator on the English Misplaced Pages. (verify) This editor is a Most Plusquamperfect Looshpah Laureate and is entitled to display this Book of All Knowledge with Secret Appendix and Errata Sheet. This user is one of the 800 most active English Wikipedians of all time. This user is a Rouge admin. This user has been on Misplaced Pages for 20 years, 4 months, and 28 days. This user has been an admin for 19 years. This user resists the POV pushing of lunatic charlatans.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

• In science, any compromise between a correct statement and a wrong statement is a wrong statement. Thanks, user:Stephan Schulz.
• My activity level is 53mKo (milli-Koavfs).
• Sad now. Special:Contributions/Geogre.
• My Last.fm profile
• vGuyUK on Twitter | SceptiGuy on Twitter

Obligatory disclaimer

I work for Dell Computer but nothing I say or do here is said or done on behalf of Dell. You knew that, right?

G. Edward Griffin

Guy, with regard to this edit, we recently had an RFC that specifically addressed the question of including "conspiracy theorist" in the first line. The closing was a clear "no", based on the derogatory nature of the term. In fact, the closer (an admin with no little experience) removed CT from other parts of the lede. We have Griffin listed in the CT categories and CT is in the infobox. So I urge you to self-revert the edit and put the term somewhere lower in the lede. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 22:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC) PS: At present the question is moot. The edit was reverted, citing the consensus BLP problem RFC result. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 03:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Question, in addition to bypassing consensus to make the lead fundamentally noncompliant with NPOV, did you also just violate 1RR by making 2RR? Just wondering. I was concerned that your concern over me crossing the sanction line may have caused you to cross the line instead. Uh oh. Hope not. Atsme☯ 00:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The RfC concluded we do not call him a conspiracy theorist, which we don't. It did not conclude that we may not say that he is known for promoting conspiracy theories, which he is (as per the infobox). Your view on Griffin's ideas is so far out of line with the consensus of the reality-based community that I do not think you are actually qualified to comment, and in any case the RFC was dominated by walls of text from you. Guy (Help!) 08:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement warning

You are hereby warned for making this revert against consensus at G. Edward Griffin, based on your comment in the closure review at AN you were obviously aware of the close. This warning is issued under the WP:ARBPSEUDO decision and will be logged and may, in addition with your previous warning, may be taken into account and may lead to substantive sanctions. The appeals process for discretionary sanctions is here. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

What? That makes no sense. I have clearly missed a comment somewhere, which is easily done in this case. Guy (Help!) 08:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

e/c This is a bullshit warning, as the terms of the arbcom decision were not broken-Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 08:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

This place is becoming fucking ridiculous. It is no longer possible to do the right thing for fear of offending the notions of POV-pushers about "process". Guy (Help!) 08:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

(I didn't mean Arbcom above, but RfC instead.) -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 14:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. It's just we're putting new coversheets on all the TPS reports before they go out now. So if you could go ahead and try to remember to do that from now on, that'd be great. Jonathunder (talk) 14:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I would be interested to see the report that led to this: Atsme accuses me of passing 1RR and possibly 2RR. In fact, I made precisely one revert, which does not even violate 1RR. The first edit is not a revert, because the text is significantly different, and the one revert of its removal was in any case over a week later so would not have violated the 1RR restriction. No restrictions were violated. That is an absolute fact. Guy (Help!) 18:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The original report is here. What Callanecc wrote there in response to it, is the same as what he later wrote to you. The warning wasn't about the 1RR DS but rather about adding material you knew (or should have known) wouldn't find consensus. You'll do better if you argue with his actual justification for the warning... :) Jytdog (talk) 18:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

ALS/Cyanobacteria

Hi guy. On the article Talk page, with regard to using a primary source in a health-related topic, you wrote "Actually my view is we should use them *as well*. The Dunlop paper was widely reported, and is plainly reliable, relevant and important."

I am taking this here since this departs from talking about the ALS article per se and is more general. I know you are both busy and experienced, so please forgive me for this. I don't know when the last time was that you took a minute and read MEDRS but please do look at Misplaced Pages:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Respect_secondary_sources and please see the lead of my draft essay, Why MEDRS?, which attempts to explain why WikiProject Medicine tries very hard to keep primary sources out of health-related content. Primary sources in the biomedical literature are generally not reliable for WP. Press releases hyping the findings of primary sources are really not reliable.

The Dunlop paper is a primary source showing in vitro results.

I spend a lot of time dealing with FRINGE content about health, and most times (not this one!) it is added to WP by editors who find some primary sources that support their POV. For example there are a few recent primary sources that show anti-cancer activity for laetrile in vitro. MEDRS' emphasis on secondary sources helps us keep FRINGE content out of WP. I follow it consistently in all my editing.... Do you see what I mean? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I understand, but this is not the first paper linking ALS to cyanobacteria toxins. I am well aware of XKCD 1217 and the problem of quacks making extravagant claims of cure, this is a completely different kind of in-vitro result, it does not promote a miracle cure, or even a molecule that might one day result in a cure, it is research on the causal mechanisms. I think we probably both have very similar experiences in this area so I am happy to talk about it, but I do see a difference for exactly that reason. Plus it's by Dr. Rachie, which is double awesome :-) Guy (Help!) 16:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I hadn't seen that cartoon!  :) I hear that reasoning, i do! It is just in the neverending struggle with FRINGE POV-pushers, that kind of subtlety (and it is really not that subtle) about mechanism vs treatment goes out the window and more importantly, is often fuzzy on toxicity issues (for instance, someone could come by and make a huge struggle out of putting UNDUE weight on content from this source, and want to talk about how dangerous cyanobacteria are.. I have been through that on many toxicity related issues (e.g endocrine disruptors, BPA, which remains a nightmare pileup of primary sources) ... and i find it best just to avoid primary sources like the plague. I appreciate you talking! Thanks for all your great work here. Jytdog (talk) 16:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Totally. The difference here is that this is work confirming a plausible causal factor fingered by others in the past, rather than seeking to prove that weed cures cancer. In fact most of the crank cites are valid, just not the inferences that are drawn from them. There are components of amygdalin that may be therapeutically useful in cancer, that is an ocean away from saying that laetrile cures cancer. I am pretty sure we are both on the same page here. Guy (Help!) 17:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

yep! Jytdog (talk) 17:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Like the following research perhaps? Atsme☯ 14:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

atsme that is a primary source. all of wikipedia is meant to be based on secondary sources. this is especially important for health-related content; please read WP:MEDRS. We do not base health-related content on primary sources like that. we don't follow the basic science; the field determines what WP:WEIGHT to give basic science through secondary sources and we report what those secondary sources say. using primary sources in WP and deciding what weight to give them, is WP:OR. are you aware of any reviews in the biomedical literature that discuss laetrile as a useful treatment (or even potentially useful treatment) for cancer, that should get even close to equal weight to the many secondary sources that say it is quackery? Jytdog (talk) 14:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, please explain each of the following as they relate to your statement above: , and ? Why are the journals you support (over 30+ years old) that are cited in the article ok to use to label amygdalin quackery but The Journal of Cancer Research and Therapeutics is not sufficient to cite updated peer reviewed journal content (respecting policy of course) that the substance is still under academic debate? Journal of Cancer Research and Therapeutics, a publication of Association of Radiation Oncologists of India (AROI), is a peer-reviewed online journal with Quarterly print on demand compilation of issues published. The journal’s full text is available online at http://www.cancerjournal.net.. At the very least, it justifies a topic that is still being researched as you both just confirmed. Please explain why you believe WP:FRINGE/PS does not apply as follows: Questionable science: Questionable science: Hypotheses which have a substantial following but which critics describe as pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect; however it should not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific while a reasonable amount of academic debate still exists on this point.? And please don't attack my question rather help me understand your position because based on my interpretation of what I've read, you support a double standard, the outcome of which is contingent upon POV. Atsme☯ 16:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I will continue to ignore your personal attacks; I do wish you would limit your comments to content and not discuss contributors.

You provide three links - two are sources summarizing the state of the field back when laetrile was seriously investigated and found to be both lacking efficacy and harming people. Those are fine sources. I am not aware of any further clinical research that would change the scientific consensus, which is based on the clinical research that was done and is based on not only the articles you cite, but statements by major medical and scientific bodies. The third link is to a search of the indian journal you mention above. That is a low-impact, open-access journal; you are putting that next to Cancer, for example - one of the highest-impact journals in the field. I don't know if you know how rare it is for mainstream scientific journals to actually come out and call something "quackery", Atsme. It is crazy rare. After that, it would take extraordinary evidence to support the extraordinary claim that laetrile for cancer is anything other than quackery. Something like Cancer or a journal of similar stature, or a major scientific or medical body, to come out and give credence to the use of laetrile to treat cancer. That may happen one day. It has not happened yet. The idea is still very solidly FRINGE, not a "significant minority view." Jytdog (talk) 17:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, you are casting aspersions yet again by falsely accusing me of personal attacks like you did above. I ask that you provide the diffs that brought you to such a conclusion. If determined to be PAs, I will apologize. If not, I expect an apology from you. It doesn't surprise me that you consider the two antiquated sources cited for inclusion of negative material as fine sources, but they are still journals, long outdated, and are what you explained to me as being primary sources, therefore WP:OR. If my source is OR, than the two cited sources are also OR. A particular POV has been given UNDUE at Griffin while the author's views are being completely suppressed which is violative of NPOV. Atsme☯ 16:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Christ on a bike, this is getting really really boring. The problem with the source you prefer is that it is a premliminary study in vitro which may or may not result in a useful compound for some component of treatment of some cancers, and it's being used to "counter" the resounding medical consensus that laetrile - a health fraud that has been prosecuted numerous times - is somehow valid. As I pointed out before, I think, even if the paper you prefer turns out to be validated, it will not validate laetrile. If canabinoids have useful properties in treating some aspects of some forms of cancer, that does not mean that smoking weed will have the same effect cancer, and it absolutely does not mean that smoking weed will cure cancer. The Dunlop paper is a confirmation of toher work making a link between certain toxins and a metabolic process that could plausibly trigger ALS. It is not being touted as a miracle cure, so the red flags do not apply. You need to look at the XKCD cartoon I linked.

I repeat: studies on cells in a petri dish do not, cannot, and will not change the consensus view of laetrile, formed after clinical trials proved it not to work. In fact, the trajectory of every single cure ever known shows an exponentially declining effect from petri dish to real populations, which is why treatments get withdrawn from time to time, but in this case before the test is even made we know the clinical outcome: the substance does not cure cancer. Whether or not it has any utility as an adjunct treatment or a specific therapy for certain diseases does not change that in any way.

And even if it did, which it won't, that absolutely and categorically does not substantiate the claim that the FDA and Big Pharma are suppressing laetrile as a cancer cure. The reaosn it is not approved or used, is because the best evidence shows it does not work. People want to believe it works. They take it despite the evidence that it does not work. Many thousands of people have done this. If it worked, this would show up by now in survival statistics, and it would have been revisited. That has not happened. In fact, people who use alternative cancer cures, die sooner, not later. Guy (Help!) 17:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, well the same damn thing happens when they use chemo and that is an undisputed fact. Regardless, you have missed the point entirely. The research is there, it is scientific and still under review by academic debate whether you want to admit it or not. My advice to you is to stop attacking the BLP using contentious material based on 30 yr old research and present it in an encyclopedic fashion, which is nothing like what you do on your online blog. Learn to separate the two. Atsme☯ 21:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

That is a very telling remark.

The world of quackery is obsessed with chemo, having failed to notice that the world has changed since the mantra was laid down. They have not noticed that over the years chemo has become a great deal less unpleasant, that doctors often don't use it if it's not indicated (e.g. in non-invasive cancers, or for some oncotype breast cancers), or that some new drugs directly target the cause rather than merely fast-reproducing cells.

But the real dishonesty in the claim is that no, people who have conventional cancer therapy - whether or not that includes chemo as either a primary or an adjuvant therapy - do not die in the same way as those who believe quacks and charlatans. Cancer survival rates have doubled since the 1970s thanks to medical advances (not quackery), children with Hodgkin's lymphoma treated with chemo are now cured nine times out of ten, and more than half of all people diagnosed with cancer in the West today will still be alive in five years. Some cancers still have dismal survival rates, others are now so well managed that you're likely to die of something else entirely.

All that said, your statement in and of itself tips your hand. You have outed yourself as a believer in anti-medicine conspiracist nonsense. The purpose behind your relentless whitewashing of the Griffin article is now clear.

As to the research, you have repeatedly shown that you do not understand what it means, or why it is irrelevant to the laetrile conspiracy theory. I've explained it at length, and you still profess not to understand, so I guess you're in denial. Remember: it is really quite easy to kill cancer cells in a dish. The trick is doing it in a human body, without killing the rest of the body as well. Laetrile is, in point of fact, a form of chemotherapy (the main side-effect being cyanide poisoning), but it's one that's been tested and does not work. Many quacks have made large sums of money pretending otherwise, and most of them have ended up gravitating to Mexico to avoid regulation. Desperate people will pay huge sums for false hope. Guy (Help!) 21:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Xenoglossy page issue

JzG, You have semi-protected the 'Xenoglossy' page again. Please return it to usual. I am adding material from the same reference that it is listed in the article right now. I am adding different aspects of it. You are mistaken in your view point to support only selected part of Thomason reports. Please stop this biased approach. You can do a better job as an administrator.74.195.244.87 (talk) 17:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

By "usual" you mean your preferred version, rejected by everybody else. The answer is: No. Keep demanding this and you will end up banned. Guy (Help!) 18:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Dominic Frisby

Hello. I was hoping to create a page for Dominic Frisby, but Misplaced Pages won't let me, and I was wondering if you might be able to help. You deleted two creations of it in 2007 and 2008. I don't doubt that you were right to do so, as he wasn't sufficiently notable seven years ago, but he should be now:

• Life After the State, 2013
• Bitcoin: The Future of Money?, 2014
• Keiser Report, 2014
• IMdB

By the way, I have no connection with the subject. Edwardx (talk) 10:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• I suggest you write a draft (Draft:Dominic Frisby) and include reliable independent sources to substantiate the claim to notability, which none of the above actually are. The first two are sales pages (and should not be linked at all), they are also primary soruces for existence of books and so not evidence of notability. The second fails our sourcing guidelines and the last is a user-editable directory so is not independent and not evidence of importance. Guy (Help!) 14:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages administrators